crozby

Both sides repeatedly do things which are deemed unacceptable to the rest of the world. There are extremists on both sides who have no interest in solving the problem amicably. Its obvious to everyone that the situation is a bag of crap. So what is the solution? How do we get from here to a situation where individuals from both sides can live relatively normal and contented lives?

From that article: The man is completely insane.

I've re-read that a few times, and I can't for the life of me see in the bit that Moore cut out where Ms Rice explains what the link between Iraq and 9/11 is, that she states exists in the first sentence. Someone help me out, please.

So Democrates are anti-American? You guys seem to hate each other more than most nations hate their neighbours. Maybe the solution would be to build a really big wall through the middle of the US dividing the place in two, put the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on the other, and just have two completely separate nations.

So what is the connection then?

The really worrying thing about this kind of nonsense is that some people belive they are reading a real letter from a real man to his real sons, when in reality they are just letting themselves be manipulated.

Yes, it's safe to say that Rupert Murdock who owns News Corp which owns Fox in the US, Sky TV in Europe and The Times and The Sun newspapers in the UK, plus many other media outlets is more than a little right-wing.

I don't think any source using the term "harping on" should be considered to be very objective, do you?

i think the whole point of the original list was that you should read the Republican/Democrat bits side by side. That way you can laugh at yourself as well as laughing at the idiots who support the morons on the other side. Here's the whole un-butchered list (again): http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Dem_Rep_compare.html

Ah don't be like that - it was a stroke of put-down genius from Jeffy. Take it like a man / woman / whatever you are.

Jeffrey try to argue the point rather than making personal attacks. I know about as much about the Philippines as you seem to know about Northern Ireland based on your comments here. Go look at some British newspaper archives and search for articles about the Philippines - it doesnt make the news much here, in the same way European news probably doesn't make the headlines in your part of the world as muchas it does in the UK. Maybe for you this forum is somewhere you go to vent steam and verbally abuse people. Thats fine. But try to understand that for other people, me included, its a place to trade opinions and learn stuff. I really don't understand why you find it so offensive that I admittedly don't know all the facts here and am able to acknowlege it and modify my opinions accordingly. If the purpose of this forum was to simply regurgitate facts from other sources it would obviously be totally fucking pointless.

No, I wasn't aware of that. That makes their action more of a gamble than I thought. I hope it pays off.

Using that logic, all the terrorists in the world also know, from examining the NI conflict, that the British government negotiate wth terrorists and are by association some kind of soft touch. Seems strange that no Brits have been kidnapped yet doesn't it?

You recon? How do you suppose they are going to terrorise the Philippines once they have all left Iraq and for what reason?

Not at all. The demands the real terrorists are making on the Philippines are that they leave Iraq. They were planning on leaving in a month anyway. Therefore the terrorist demand in this instance is pretty trivial as far as the Philippines government is concerned. Its often a good idea to test theories (in this case 'Never negotiate with terrorists') against extremes (ie they only want something really trivial) to see if the theory holds true in all circumstances. Hence the hypothetical situation. You think the rule should never be broken. My hypothetical situation was trying to test if you truely believe your rule under all circumstances. Terrorists are not like children. They are far more sophisticated and intelligent. Terrorists outsmarted the best of the worlds intelligence communities and commited 9/11. How many conflicts have been lost through under-estimating ones enemy? Negotiation has been proven to work sometimes and without all the negative side-effects you speak of - Northern Ireland is case in point. So to suggest that it doesn't work ever is plain wrong.

In response to my hypothetical situation post you said "You do not allow yourselves to negotiate with terrorists" etc. It's a safe assumption from that statement that you would not negotiate with the terrorists in my hypothetical situation isn't it?

Or else what? Thats the problem isn't it? The terrorists kill hostages and just get away with it. If we knew where they were, we could threaten them, but we don't. I'm not so sure that if all the governments stood strong the kidnappings would stop anyway because each time someone is executed the general public get very much more queasy about the situation, even if the governments are being strong. This enemy can endure more casualties over a longer period of time than we can. They can just keep picking off targets at their leisure and they know, because history has shown it, that this tactic works against enemies infinitely stronger than them.

LOL. Thats all right then. For a minute there I thought you had no idea what you were talking about.

have they set a national policy? i thought they just weighed up the pros and cons in this instance and decided it was better to save a life. If its so obvious that one would pay the buck to save ones relatives, why is it such a different matter for a government to sacrifice something equally as trivial to save a life. There will most likely be no negative comebacks for their actions in this instance which would indicate that sometimes appeasment or negotiation is the right path after all.

What makes you think that?

Thats a politicians answer, and anyway no it isn't. He's basically taking the line that one should never negotiate with terrorists. I'm questioning if he really stands by that in all circumstances.

So you're saying that in my example, you'd sacrifice your family for a dollar? I'm sure they'd be delighted to know you value them so highly. Plus you might want to re-read news coverage of the standoff between US troops and Al Sadr in Faluja last month. Your guys negotiated a ceasefire with him. He's a terrorist. Go figure.

err.. whatever. Can I assume that you see terrorist negotiation in black and white like Jeffry? If so, how about attempting to answer my previous question?

Hypothetical situation: Some 'terrorists' take your entire family hostage. They say they will kill their hostages unless their demands are met. They demand something totally trivial, say 1 dollar, for the release. Are you telling me that in that situation you would recommend that the hostages be sacrificed, rather than hand over 1 dollar? I hope not. The point being that you don't just blindly follow rules like that - you weigh up the pro's & con's and make a decision. The Philipines governments first responsibility is to her citizens. If people from other nations die as a result of her saving her citizens that is a secondary matter - isn't that the justification for the 10,000 Iraqi deaths? Weren't they sacrificed to protect US lives as part of the on-going war on terror/wmd/who knows anymore?

They aren't doing that - they are not putting any of their other citizens at risk. Besides, a government should look at the situation and make a judgement rather than blindly obeying that rule as you suggest.